Sunday, January 27, 2013

A column in the Los Angeles Times looks at a perhaps overlooked aspect of the briefs filed by anti-gay forces in the Prop 8 and DOMA cases now pending before the U. S. Supreme Court. Paul Clement, counsel for the HOP House members defending DOMA - who is ripping off American taxpayers to the tune of $3 million to date - argues that the Court should uphold DOMA because it is rational that heterosexuals have special marriage rights because they are in essence sexually irresponsible and without marriage society would be faced with burdens associated with unwanted pregnancies and single parent families. In Clement's bizarre world, he never quite explains how giving same sex couples civil marriage rights would somehow take away marriage rights for straights or encourage increased irresponsible, sexually promiscuous behavior by straights. Nor does the argument give any consideration to the millions of children being raised by same sex couples who suffer as a result of their parents' lack of marriage rights. The whole argument demonstrates the contortions the far right is going through trying to avoid any mention of the real reason they oppose gay marriage: religious based discrimination. Here are column highlights:

Marriage should be limited to unions of a man and a woman because
they alone can "produce unplanned and unintended offspring," opponents
of gay marriage have told the Supreme Court.
By contrast, when same-sex couples decide to have children,
"substantial advance planning is required," said Paul D. Clement, a
lawyer for House Republicans.

Conservative attorneys did not argue that gays or lesbians engaged in
"immoral" behavior or lifestyles. Instead they emphasized what they
called the "very real threat" to society posed by opposite-sex couples
when they are not bound by the strictures of marriage.

The traditional marriage laws "reflect a unique social difficulty
with opposite-sex couples that is not present with same-sex couples —
namely, the undeniable and distinct tendency of opposite-sex
relationships to produce unplanned and unintended pregnancies," wrote
Clement, a solicitor general under President George W. Bush. "Unintended children produced by opposite-sex relationships and raised out-of-wedlock would pose a burden on society."

"It is plainly reasonable for California to maintain a unique
institution [referring to marriage] to address the unique challenges
posed by the unique procreative potential of sexual relationships
between men and women," argued Washington attorney Charles J. Cooper,
representing the defenders of Proposition 8. Same-sex couples need not
be included in the definition of marriage, he said, because they "don't
present a threat of irresponsible procreation."

In the lower courts, defenders of the traditional laws struggled to
explain why committed couples of the same sex should be denied the
benefits of marriage.The plaintiffs include same-sex couples who are
raising children.

Clement and Cooper do not address that issue directly. Instead, they
argue that it is reasonable for the law to steer opposite-sex couples
toward marriage, including by giving them extra benefits. "It was
rational for Congress
to draw the line where it did," Clement said, "because the institution
of marriage arose in large measure in response to the unique social
difficulty that opposite-sex couples, but not same-sex couples, posed."

What makes Clement's argument all the more laughable is the reality that the Christofascists have spent millions of dollars arguing that it is gays, not straights, who are irresponsible, promiscuous sex fiends who jump from bed to bed. Again, they will go to any lengths to avoid religious based bigotry as the real reason for same sex marriage bans. But then, honesty is not one of the strong suits of the far right and the Christofascists.

Translate This Page

Contact Me to Order Title Work

LGBT Legal Services

About Me

Out gay attorney in a committed relationship; formerly married and father of three wonderful children; sometime activist and political/news junkie; survived coming out in mid-life and hope to share my experiences and reflections with others.
In the career/professional realm, I have merged my aw firm - Michael B. Hamar, P.C. - with Dillon Law group PLC and become affiliated with Liberty Title & Escrow Co.. I practice in the areas of real estate, estate planning (Wills, Trusts, Advanced Medical Directives, Financial Powers of Attorney, Durable Medical Powers of Attorney); business law and commercial transactions; formation of corporations and LLC's; and legal services to the gay, lesbian and transgender community, including birth certificate amendment.

Disclaimer on Opinions and Content

This Blog contains content that may be innapropriate for readers under the legal age of 18. IF YOU ARE UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE, PLEASE LEAVE NOW. Thank you

This is an opinion and commentary blog and the opinions and contents of this Blog - including opinions expressed concerning opponents of LGBT equality - are the opinions only of the individual blogger and should not be attributed to any other individuals or to any organization of which the blogger is a past or current member.

Followers

Michael-in-Norfolk disclaims any and all responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, completeness, legality, reliability, operability, or availability of information or material displayed on this site and does not claim credit for any images or articles featured on this site, unless otherwise noted. All visual content is copyrighted to it's respectful owners. Information on this site may contain errors or inaccuracies, and Michael-in-Norfolk does not make warranty as to the correctness or reliability of the site's content. If you own rights to any of the images or articles, and do not wish them to appear on this site, please contact Michael-in-Norfolk via e-mail and they will be promptly removed. Michael-in-Norfolk contains links to other Internet sites. These links are provided solely as a convenience and are not endorsements of any products or services in such sites, and no information or content in such site has been endorsed or approved by this blog.